We don't know what energy IS — universeness
A photoelectric sensor can 'detect' a photon, which to me, is evidence that it is not immaterial. — universeness
n what way are you using 'immaterial' here? as a synonym with supernatural? If not, then do you have other synonyms you would accept for 'immaterial' as you use it here? — universeness
Do you have any 'descriptions' or even 'attributes' of that which you perceive exists 'outside' of this universe. — universeness
Can you refer to 'outside' this universe without suggesting an existent which we would currently label 'supernatural'? — universeness
So whether you view the annihilation of a particle-antiparticle pair into a pair of photons the “destruction of matter” or just a conversion from one form of matter into another is, to a large extent, a matter of taste. — universeness
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' — universeness
. I would agree that 'absence of evidence is not proof of absence.' — universeness
There is zero evidence of the existence of the immaterial — universeness
I never said that you couldn't infer the conclusion with a premise, I said you couldn't infer it without the premise. — Metaphysician Undercover
Energy is nothing more than a concept. — Metaphysician Undercover
. A supposed "true conceptualization" of the universe might be able to represent all of reality as "the universe", but this conceptualization would be very different from the useful conceptualization which we currently employ. — Metaphysician Undercover
That the sensor detects a photon is a common misinterpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover
I really can't understand what you are asking. I am using "immaterial" in the common way, as non-material, such as we would say that concepts have immaterial existence. Energy is nothing more than a concept. There is absolutely nothing in the world of matter which "energy" represents. It is very similar to "time" in that respect. We use the concept freely, but there is nothing material in the world which is represented by it. So if we try to reify it, to say that there is something real which is represented by it, we end up being forced to say that there is something real which is immaterial. That's what happens when we try to reify concepts. — Metaphysician Undercover
the conclusion that there is something outside the universe. In other words, that there is something outside the universe is a logical conclusion produced from our current conception of "the universe". — Metaphysician Undercover
Do you label concepts, being artificial instead of natural, as supernatural? — Metaphysician Undercover
I guess the nature of matter is a feature of which flavour of quark you prefer. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think what he meant was that there is information out there that we haven't yet obtained. Bigger truths that contextualised our differences of opinion. — Benj96
And in what way does one "prove" something? I think it's with evidence no? The empirical.
So proof of absence is what in this case but lacking evidence to do so. — Benj96
There is zero evidence of the existence of the immaterial
— universeness
There isnt? Are you sure? — Benj96
When i invent/construct in my mind a fantasy. There is no evidence for that fantasy existing except for me (the beholder of the fantasy contained in my mind - the immaterial, inaccessible to anyone else unless I speak. My. Mind).
The minute I write it down as a novel. It becomes real. Something physical that people can read and interpret/read/appreciate. I have shared my creativity and imagination with the world in that case. Something that was once private and inaccesible to anyone else. — Benj96
A human fantasy, constructed within a human mind is not immaterial, its real, you are really experiencing it, either in sleep or awake mode — universeness
I can remove most of the rest of you and you will still be able to act as a thinking human, if not a fully functioning one. — universeness
Yes, I am currently convinced, the immaterial has no existent. — universeness
Artificial is material artificial intelligence for example is emulation and emulation is real. Artificial simply means made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural — universeness
But how do you empirically prove I'm experiencing it unless I tell you I am experiencing it? My internal thoughts are private to me are they not? Inaccesible by any study, objective measurement etc until I elucidate them verbally. — Benj96
I did not suggest that science has solved the hard problem of consciousness. I am suggesting that I dont know why you jump to woo woo words such as 'immaterial.' There is no evidence that the immaterial has an existing example. You are suggesting we can use the term credibly and confidently, in regard to phenomena such as human consciousness. I do not see where that confidence or credence comes from, but I do see where the confidence and credence come from when a word like 'material' is used in regard to human thought, as we have what is considered to be many detectable attributes of energy particles or energy field excitations.But the hard problem of consciousness exists. To assume it doesn't means you have proof as to how my brains function gives rise to my sensations/emotions and feelings. And the imagination. — Benj96
If you had such a proof you'd be able to predict what I'm thinking now plus whatever I could possibly think of in the future.
Do you know who I am in my entirety? All my memories, experiences, beliefs and opinions, feelings? Does anyone?
Or are they strictly immaterial (non physical/not expressed/not written down) to everyone if I choose not to divulge them?
How would you, with a materialist explanation, account for the information in my mind that you cannot access? — Benj96
If the immaterial doesn't exist then I suppose the material cannot do anything. It cannot be acted on, move etc. Because what would exist to do those things to the material? What fills in the gap between material things and allows them to move towards or away from eachother for example. — Benj96
I doubt you can remove anything from me that isn't vital to my interpretation/sense of the world without impacting my consciousness — Benj96
If you remove my vital organs I die. — Benj96
Can light exist without darkness? Can poverty exist in isolation from wealth? Can sound exist without silence!? Can up exist without down? — Benj96
Can natural systems created artificial things? — Benj96
Well, I could scan your brain and use the science we hve not to see if the bits of the brain that should 'light up' or activate during dreaming or 'imagining,' do in fact 'light up' or 'activate'. I am not a neuroscientist, but I have watched various documentaries on what we currently understand is going on in the brain and how brain activity maps to human activity/thought. We also have your confirmatory verbal input to assist the process. — universeness
There is no evidence that the immaterial has an existing example. — universeness
nueroscience does know a respectable amount about the workings of the brain — universeness
But I outlined a situation in which I don't volunteer the information verballyx but rather keep it to myself. — Benj96
Force/energy is material — universeness
How about a hair or a skin cell or a fingernail? How about a skin graft? — universeness
I'm saying that my mind is exactly such an example. If you have no access to the entirety of my minds content then it is by default immaterial to you. Unprovable with what's available to materialism. Without my input. — Benj96
Sure, one day science might be able to produce a toy which allows you to concentrate on a number and my brain scanner can tell you what the number is. It might not work every time but even once or twice would be impressive, yes? On what basis is you keeping your thought secret from another evidence that the immaterial exists. All that would be evidence for is the fact that you have the ability to not tell me what you are currently thinking! — universeness
But all brains are different no? Structured differently. Otherwise we would all have the same memories and think the same things simultaneously. — Benj96
If force/energy is material Should we not be able to see it just like we can see matter - a cup of coffee on the table. — Benj96
If you remove a hair I can't feel any fly/mosquito brushing against it. — Benj96
We would if we experienced every life event since birth in exactly the same way. — universeness
How are the blind still able to experience a 'reality'? — universeness
The fact that I can keep information private from everyone else is by definition something that is no physical - something that it is impossible for others to ascertain with objective methods.
And if they tried I could cite invasion of privacy. An ethical Implication which would likely stand up in court even if you could scientifically extract the information from my mind by scanning. — Benj96
They experience reality differently to those that can see. — Benj96
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.